Pundit Press has moved on to bigger and better things.

Pundit Press now includes Pundit Press Radio and Pundit Press TV, bringing you the latest news and information with some of the top writers and broadcasters on the web today.

Please visit us at our new website: http://thepunditpress.com/.

Saturday, February 25, 2012



"The truth is that Barak Obama is
a committed and active Christian."

         Of what, if any, religious faith is our current President? This, unfortunately, is one of many questions about him to which the American people have no answers. For the first time in U.S. history, our people were asked to vote for, and now to vote a second time for, a man about whom less is known than any other president. Our disgrace of a “media” made sure of that, asking no question and reporting no item that might, in the most trivial way, derail the Hope and Change president from his destiny.
Unfortunately, the steady, moderate, electable John McCain did more than his share to keep us in the dark about Hope and Change. In 2008, believe it or not, McCain hired one Mark McKinnon as his “chief advertising strategist.” This in spite of the fact that McKinnon had told him he would not work against an Obama candidacy. McKinnon said that Mr. Obama’s election to the presidency “would send a great message to the country and the world.” McKinnon reportedly told McCain on more than one occasion that if McCain said anything disparaging about Obama, McKinnon would be “outta here.”
So why does Obama’s religious belief, if any, matter? That is, aside from the quaint notion that a free people should be entitled to have some information about the person they are asked to vote for? And aside from his recent demands that the Catholic Church violate its millennia-old religious beliefs and provide free condoms and abortifacients to all of its employees?  And aside from his self-described “spiritual mentor” having a propensity to rage from his pulpit that God should “damn America”?

Granted the Constitution explicitly prohibits a religious test for president. But nowhere in the document does it suggest a candidate has the right to cruise through one or more entire election processes without divulging anything whatsoever about his background or his personal beliefs. In fact, it presupposes a vigorous free press and a vigorous political opposition, neither of which seemed to be functioning in 2008.
Had the system functioned as it should, we might not have had to take the word of such as “Obama For America” about his “committed and active” Christianity. We would know a lot more about his religious, philosophical, and intellectual aspects had we learned how he presented himself on his applications to Occidental College, Columbia, and Harvard; what courses he took; what professors he preferred; what, if anything, he wrote; what grades he got; what he majored in. We learned none of that.
 But lets move on to 2012. Candidate Rick Santorum questioned the nature of Obama’s “faith” and the White House shrieked that Santorum went “well over the line.” Investors’ Business Daily has an excellent analysis of that exchange here. The "truth" from the opening quotation above might more accurately have read “. . . that Barack Obama is a committed and active Marxist.”

Afghan protesters burn Barak Obama in effigy, 2/22/12
At the least he seems to have a greater affinity for Islam than for Christianity. Recently he apologized to Afghanistan (and all of Islam) for the inadvertent burning of the Muslim Holy Book, proclaiming that those responsible will 
be “held accountable.” How we shall hold “accountable” Americans who carried out an admittedly “inadvertent” act should prove interesting. But several other 
things should also prove interesting:

1)  In the aftermath of the inadvertent act, many decidedly intentional acts took place, including an Afghan in military uniform walking up to and shooting to death two U.S. military personnel. Did we hear our Commander-in-Chief demand an apology from Hamid Karzai for those murder? Or demand that the Afghan shooter be “held accountable”?

2)  In the same aftermath the Taliban on Thursday called on Afghans to attack foreign troops, and their spokesman issued a statement ordering its commanders to embrace and protect the families of any Afghan policeman or soldier who turns his gun on foreign troops. "Call them heroes," he said. Shall we hold our breath waiting for our Commander-in-Chief to rethink his plan to negotiate with the Taliban?

3) Obviously the Taliban spokesman's statement was more powerful than our Commander-in-Chief's obsequious apology.  Today [2/25/12] two American officers were found dead of gunshot wounds deep inside the heavily fortified Afghan interior ministry.  "There is CCTV there and special locks.  The killer would have had to have the highest security (clearance) to get to the room where they were killed," a source told Reuters.  Perhaps our Commander-in-Chief will now want to fly there personally for a deep-body bow and some genuine groveling.

4)  In Afghanistan's recent past (2009), Bibles were intentionally burned by U.S. military personnel, under orders from higher up.  Did you miss our Commander-in-Chief's apology to Christians throughout the world?  Probably so.  You have in fact heard him refer often to the "Holy Quran."  Have you ever heard him refer to the "Holy Bible"?  Probably not.

There are two things we can still count on: we can bet that, whoever the Republican nominee is, his religious and philosophical beliefs will be microscopically examined, critiqued, and torn apart by our "media."  Obama?  Not at all.  Too personal.  "Over the line." And, for those who do believe in Christianity, we can still say "God help us."

MO Atty

Today's topic is "juxtaposition"

I was reading the newspaper yesterday and read a very interesting column. Thought about it for a little while, and then moved on to reading other things.

And then this morning, I open up the op-ed pages, and read another very interesting column. See what you think of each. Here is the first:

When debate is maddening


Friday, February 24, 2012

LITTLE ROCK — A few years ago Ann Coulter published a book titled How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must). With all due respect, Coulter, one of my favorite conservative eye-pokers, was wrong. There is no “how” in talking to a liberal. You can’t talk to a liberal, period.

Believe me, I’ve tried. I’ve got a liberal mother, four liberal siblings and their assorted liberal offspring, and a horde of liberal friends. (I went to college and grad school.) Whenever I advance to them even the mildest of challenges to liberal orthodoxies, on topics ranging from the welfare state to illegal immigration to abortion, I’m greeted with name-calling, obscenities, shout-overs and, finally, the gravelike silence of ostracism.

The problem is this: We conservatives think liberals are silly; they think we’re evil (emphasis mine). Tell a liberal that you hope President Barack Obama will be defeated in the coming election, and you’ll be branded a racist. Voice your opposition to same-sex marriage, and you’re a homophobe. Express outrage at the idea of building a mosque anywhere near where one of the planes’ fuselages fell in the 9/11 massacre, and you’re an Islamophobe. If you support the Tea Party, or Rick Santorum for president, or defunding Planned Parenthood, or setting up credible border enforcement, you could be all of the above plus more: anti-woman, anti-poor, anti-tolerance and a fascist to boot.

Liberals go on and on about the Manichaeism of conservatives: how quick we supposedly are to divide a morally gray world into black and white. But nothing beats the Manichaeism of liberals: Their causes are holy, and ours deserve a bucketful of scatology on Daily Kos. (emphasis mine)

Here are some characteristics of liberals that make it impossible to carry on a civilized debate with them: The personal is always the political, and vice versa. I nearly lost one of my oldest and dearest friends in 2004 after she forwarded me an email containing an incendiary anti-George W. Bush op-ed by the leftist novelist E.L. Doctorow.Among other charges in the op-ed, which made Bush look about as caring as King George III in the run-up to the Revolutionary War, Doctorow claimed Bush didn’t care about the “40 percent” of Americans “who cannot afford health insurance.” “Do you really believe this?” I emailed back, pointing out that Doctorow had gotten his numbers jumbled. It was not 40 percent but 40 million Americans-more like 15 percent-who lacked health insurance for various reasons back then. It took six years for my friend and I to mend our sundered relationship.

Liberals constantly violate the rule that politics and religion should be off-limits in social discourse. Toward the end of 2008, I received an invitation to some friends’ Christmas party. Actually, it was a “holiday” party, since liberals never say Christmas. The invitation informed me that we would be celebrating, among other things, the end of “eight years of Republican chicanery.” Those friends weren’t the only ones. A college pal’s Christmas-er, holiday-card mailed around the same time rejoiced, “Our man won!” Our man? Liberals simply assume that if you possess a post-secondary degree and you’ve heard of Plato, you, too would like to try Dick Cheney for war crimes. Then, when they find out you’re not on board, their faces petrify into Easter Island stone heads as they make a mental note to delete you from their iPhone address books.

A conversation with a liberal is a minefield of political-correctness booby traps. Two years ago, as I was defending my doctoral dissertation on a medieval topic, I mentioned that wealthy women of that time often functioned as patrons of the arts, commissioning beautifully decorated religious books. “Women like pretty things,” I said. OMG! I looked around at the three learned but liberal female professors on the committee, their smiles suddenly frozen into rictuses, groans issuing from their lips. How was I going to tell my husband, who had already made the reservations for a celebratory dinner, that I’d failed the defense? (Fortunately, I didn’t, but it was a scary moment.)

It’s always like that: chance observations about human nature or obvious sex differences draw blood from the paper-thin epidermis of wounded liberals. You can’t say that guys really do drive better than girls. You can’t say that girls are worse at math. You can’t even say “girls.”

I don’t have this problem with my libertarian friends, who are up for debating just about anything, especially libertarians’ favorite topic, drug legalization. But when it comes to liberals-well, I love my liberal family, friends and academic colleagues, but I try to stick to safe conversational topics (emphasis mine) such as literature, music, food and gossip.Until one of them-as so often happens-asks, “Don’t you think we ought to boycott Fox News/ the Susan G. Komen foundation/ the state of Arizona/pick a pariah of your choice?”

And when I disagree, I’m the fascist.


Charlotte Allen is the author of The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus.

Okay, now let's compare and contrast with another column that ran today in pretty much the same space.

We are not the same


Saturday, February 25, 2012

LITTLE ROCK — I recently played poker with a bunch of Republicans. My husband and I, both bleeding-heart liberals, are part owners of a cabin in the Sierra outside Fresno, California, a very conservative area. The Camp Sierra Association president has an annual poker game, and this year we, the newcomers, were invited.

No one mentioned politics. We talked instead about our kids and Las Vegas and the odd warm weather. There was a lot of laughter and a lot of very good Scotch. I had fun even though I lost $4.

When the game was over, we walked home with our across-the-road neighbors and invited them in for a final nightcap.

They are the best neighbors in the world. Always ready with a tool, an ingredient or a jump-start for the car. Whatever you need, if they have it, they will give it. They are a lovely family: husband, wife and four smart, funny, polite children. I was sure they were Democrats.

As the husband sat down in our living room with his drink, he announced, “The Tea Party is not racist.” We just looked at him. “The Tea Party is not racist,” he continued, “because I am a member of the Tea Party.”

I laughed. I thought he was joking, but he quickly made it clear he was not. He is white and his wife is African-American. And they belong to the Tea Party. They don’t care who becomes our next president as long as it isn’t Barack Obama. The conversation devolved from there until he was shouting, I was shouting, his wife was trying to calm him down, my husband was trying to calm me down, and our other friends—Democrats—were trying to keep everybody from breaking the furniture.

We argued about health care and welfare, President Obama’s nationality and religion, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We did not agree on anything. But honestly, the issues were not important. What matters is how personal it quickly became, how vitriolic, how filled with hate. He said I was sucking the country dry with my support of food stamps and public education. He said I needed to get off my butt and take care of myself. I suggested he sign his kids up to die in Iran, the next place he thinks we should attack. He called me a spoiled idiot and worse. I called him selfish, shortsighted and worse. It was awful, and it went on until after 3 a.m.

The next morning, they knocked on our door and we apologized to each other and laughed sheepishly. All in good fun, the wife said. It was the Scotch talking, my husband replied. But my feelings about them are changed. I cannot respect them as I did before. And as they headed back across the street, I saw the look they gave each other: They don’t like us anymore, either.

My mother had Republican friends. She was a lifelong Democrat, worked with the Adlai Stevenson for president campaign and was a precinct chairman for Hubert Humphrey. She was ashamed of Richard Nixon and thought Ronald Reagan was misguided. Still, she didn’t hate Republicans. She disagreed with their politics and they with hers, but she believed people, no matter how they vote, are basically all the same.

I don’t agree. I don’t want to be friends with someone who is a member of the Tea Party or is a Newt Gingrich Republican. We are not the same. (emphasis mine) I equate their political views with thoughtlessness, intolerance and narcissism. I think they are not kind or empathetic. And my neighbor made it clear that he does not respect my opinions or me.

You’re what’s wrong with this country!” he shouted. “No, you are!” was my intelligent retort. In only one area could we agree: We each would prefer the other just didn’t exist. If only they would all go live in Gingrich’s moon colony. If only we would all move to Canada with the other socialists. My mother would have been horrified, but times have changed.

My neighbors want good jobs, nice houses and security for their four children. They want to be able to retire before they get too old so they can spend more time at their cabin. They love the Sierra Nevada and want it to remain pristine. I want those things, too. I want it for their children as well as mine, and for all children everywhere. Of course I do. And that’s what I find so frustrating.

My views on all these things—gay marriage, abortion, the war in Iraq, health care, education, food stamps, even NPR and PBS funding—seem so logical to me. Of course we need to take care of those less fortunate; of course we want everybody to have the joy and legal benefits of a life partner; of course we want every baby to be wanted and every person to be safe, healthy, informed and looking forward to a better future.

These things are no-brainers to me, and it kills me that my neighbor disagrees. I wonder what would happen if he woke up one morning to find that his son had been killed in Iraq or that his 15-year-old daughter was pregnant or that his favorite sister was gay. What if he suddenly lost his job, his wife got cancer, there was no insurance and not much food? I’m not saying I want life to knock him around. But would he still feel that the government shouldn’t be helping anybody out?

Next time I drive to our cabin, I’m going to make sure I take everything I could possibly need. I don’t want to ask my neighbors for help. I hope it’s their weekend to stay home.


Diana Wagman is the author of the novels Skin Deep, Spontaneous, and Bump.

I really wanted to fisk this column, but then I thought this would be an excellent topic for people to kick around for a little while. Both columns have things to be critical of. For instance, in the first column, I'm pretty sure that Ms. Allen has her tongue firmly planted in her cheek when she stated that liberals don't say Christmas, but instead say holiday. Perhaps a large majority of them do, but not all liberals use holiday instead of Christmas. Such over-generalization should be more plainly labeled as humor, especially when we're talking about liberals' sense of humor (or lack thereof). But let me make three observations.

First, notice just the general tone of the two articles. One is positive and tries to delve into the minds of others; the other is negative and doesn't want anything to do with others. Notice the parts in each article that I emphasized.

Next, on the topic of the second article and the instigation of the topics by the conservative friend. I'm thinking that maybe something else was said other than "our kids and Vegas and the odd warm weather" at the poker game, and the friend was reacting to that. After all, it would be awfully odd to just walk into somebody's house and announce that you are not a racist. Nonetheless, the conservative friend erred by walking into somebody else's house and starting a contentious subject in such a way.

Finally, I'd like to answer the questions that are asked at the end of the second column. I can't speak for anybody but myself, but I imagine that my answers would be echoed by every conservative that reads this. Mrs. Wagman asks the question of "would he still feel that the government shouldn't help out" when it comes to teen-age pregnancy, homosexuality, no insurance, and food shortage, among other things. And I think my answers would be yeah, no change on any of my answers.

How about you? Do you think your answers would change? Why or why not?

Please bookmark!

Why Romney Will Win Michigan

The battle for Michigan is in its final stages, as Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney zigzag across the crucial state for last second voters, however, I am almost completely certain that Romney will win regardless of what Santorum does over the next couple of days, because of his message right now.

Romney, who has regained the lead after working tirelessly to overcome Santorum's trifecta, is on newfound campaign ground: tea party adherents. He's making the case, positively, that he not only qualifies as a conservative candidate, but as the strongest one to take on President Obama this fall.

Most tea partiers still look at Romney with suspicion, but the fact he's out of his comfort zone and reaching out to tea partiers instead of locking up moderates, or regular conservatives, shows me his campaign is extremely confident their base will come strong for him, and now he's venturing out to Santorum's base to gain a little more.

Another indicator is Santorum's own messaging towards Romney these past couple of days. Gone, absolutely gone, is nice Rick as he refers to Mitt Romney as an Occupy Wall Street adherent.... all because he favors limiting deductions for the uber-wealthy, while pushing to decrease everyone's income taxes by 20%.

The last thing Republican voters want to see is one candidate calling another leftist codewords and injecting class warfare into the race. It destroyed Newt Gingrich when he attacked Romney's Bain success, and it will do the same to Santorum for equating the former governor with socialists, who want to destroy the wealthy, which would seem counter-productive for someone as wealthy as Mr. Romney.

When the results come out Tuesday night and Romney is the victor, just remember this article: the candidate won by being positive and reintroducing his roots to voters, while the loser went with an class warfare argument that backfired.

What say you?

Investor: Oil Will Rise Until Economy 'Breaks'

Please bookmark!

Video" Why is Obama 'Indignant' Over Gas Prices?

Please bookmark!

Obama Weekly Address: Well, You Know Drilling Isn't Really Such a Great Idea

Geniuses, all.

Please bookmark!

Friday, February 24, 2012

Sarah Palin Divorce?

Apparently, she came close to divorcing her husband back in 2007. From the Mail Online:
Sarah Palin contemplated divorce in 2007, emails covering her tenure as governor of Alaska indicate.

Her job had taken a toll on her marriage long before she even became McCain's running mate, emails released yesterday insinuate.

In a September 26, 2007, email to aide Kris Perry and her husband Todd, titled 'Marital Problems,' Palin wrote: 'So speaking of... If we, er, when we get a divorce, does that quell 'conflict of interest' accusations about BP?'

In 2007 Todd Palin resigned from his job at BP, because of a perceived conflict of interest as his wife's administration were in midst of negotiations with the oil company over natural gas pipeline.

Todd had worked for BP for 18 years, and after taking an absence of leave in 2007, returned to the company in a different role nine months later. He stepped down again in 2009.

Rumours about a breakdown in the Palins' marriage have been swirling for years. Both Palins had extra marital affairs including one as early as 1996, according to the National Enquirer. And the reports that Sarah allegedly had an affair with Todd's business partner Brad Hanson themselves led to a deterioration in their marriage, according to the blog, the Alaska Report.
Please bookmark!

Orlando Nike Riot

And just when you thought things couldn't get weirder:

Riot erupts at Florida Mall during Nike All Star collection sneaker release event: MyFoxORLANDO.com

Please bookmark!

Republican Pulls Ahead in MT Senate Poll

Democrat Jon Tester won election to the Senate in 2006 on a wave of public discontent. Against incumbent Conrad Burns, he won by .9% and with under 50% of the vote. Burns had an approval rating of under 40%.

Now, Tester is up against Congressman and former Lieutenant Governor Denny Rehberg. According to Rasmussen's polling, Rehberg is ahead of the incumbent.

Rehberg: 47%
Tester: 44%
Other/und: 10%

The fact that Tester is significantly under 50% is a real notch against him at this point in the race. The people of Montana have a libertarian streak and strongly oppose ObamaCare. When Tester ran in 2006, he ran as a moderate and then voted for the health care overhaul.

Please bookmark!

Mileage Tips 2012

With gas prices pushing higher and higher, drivers are trying to get the most out of every gallon. Here are a few tips that you can use.

- The optimal gas mileage speed for most vehicles is 45 miles per hour. If you're on a back road with no one around, watch your gas mileage spike.

- On the highway, driving at 55 compared to 70 will save you MPGs, especially on long trips.

- Make sure to get regular oil changes.

- Make sure to keep your tires inflated.

- If possible during the summer, use the vent instead of the AC.

- Cars with standard transmission get a little better mileage.

- Cruise control will help with mileage and could prevent speeding tickets.

- Use a bike if possible! Gas is getting too darn expensive!

Please bookmark!

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Fear of Grave Robbers Robbing Whitney Houston's Tomb

Weird. Just weird.

Fears that ghouls will plunder her resting place were triggered after it was revealed she was buried wearing up to £300,000 of jewels and designer clothes.

Please bookmark!

Video of Ron Paul / Santorum "Aggressive" Handshake

The talk of the internet... Apparently, a lot of people are talking about the handshake that Senator Rick Santorum gave Congressman Ron Paul at last night's debate. It's not clear if the handshake was aggressive or joking in manner. The two had been exchanging jabs several times last night.

Please bookmark!

The Forbidden Word Impeach

What does History tell us about the impeachment of an American President?  It has only happened twice. 
Today Lincoln is an icon.  His Roman style temple and oversized statue dominate one end of the National Mall.  But in 1864 he was an embattled president caught in a war he couldn’t win and running against George B. McClellan, a popular general who said he could end it.  Even History was against Lincoln. No president had won a second term in over thirty years.  Mr. Lincoln needed all the allies he could muster to win.  So the first Republicans led by the President tried to split the opposition.  They changed the party name to the National Union Party and chose a Southern Democrat as a running mate.  In a surprise to everyone including Lincoln, he won re-election positioning Johnson one heartbeat away from the Oval Office. 
After the worst mistake by a Southern sympathizer since the attack on Fort Sumter, the assassination of Lincoln, Andrew Johnson assumed the presidency and almost immediately ran afoul of the Radical Republicans who had a three to one majority in Congress and who wanted to punish the South.  Johnson was the only Southern Senator to remain loyal to the Union.  He served as the Union imposed military governor of Tennessee until chosen to run for Vice President.   A mere forty one days into Lincoln’s second term Johnson was sworn in.  When he sought to allow the South a path back into the Union that re-imposed limitations upon the freed slaves and ensured the rise of ex-Confederates to power, he was impeached for breaking a law concerning the firing of appointees.  After a contentious trial he was acquitted by one vote. 
Johnson and his presidency survived, barely.  He was afterwards relegated to irrelevancy and served as a mere caretaker until General Grant came along to become the face of Reconstruction.  In this first impeachment battle the President was acquitted, but Congress won. 
If you ask the average person who lived through the national ordeal President Clinton was impeached because of his scandalous tryst with a young intern in the Oval Office.  Though this was a shameful betrayal of trust, it was not the reason he was impeached.  He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in a legal matter that had nothing at all to do with Monica Lewinsky.  And even though Clinton was later found in contempt by a federal judge for lying under oath and was later disbarred for ethical violations it was the leadership of the House that impeached him that paid the political price.  The Senate which on a strict party line vote (all the Progressives voted to acquit), came out relatively unscathed.  Today we are constantly told by the Progressive Press Mr. Clinton is a beloved elder statesman. 
Etched upon the memory of the Republican wing of the party of power is the knowledge that unless there is a Senate willing to convict there is no glory in being a House ready to indict. 
Republics rise and republics fall.  They rise due to the explosion of creativity and production which always accompanies freedom, and they fall when demagogues convince a majority that they deserve a free ride at the expense of a minority. The good thing about History is that if we are wise enough we can learn from other people’s mistakes.  And if we aren’t going to allow History to instruct us we should at least be wise enough to allow it to warn us. 
Our History teaches us that the impeachment process is possible to initiate but difficult to consummate.  So what are we to do if History warns us that what we are witnessing is the fall of our republic?  Have we learned enough from History to navigate our way through to a safe harbor, or are we helpless in the face of a hurricane of transformation? 
Due to the information developed by the American intelligence community and the bravery of Navy Seal Team Six we learned that the leader of Al Qaeda, the fraternity of terrorists America finds itself endlessly destroying, was not hiding in a cave.  He was instead living in a compound barely 1,000 yards from the military academy of our principle ally in our decade long undeclared war.  Today’s Hitler is dead, yet the war goes on as if nothing has happened.  We have victory after victory with no conclusion and no peace in sight.   
Looking at our current economic and social situation America appears more like an occupied nation than the victor of the Cold War and the sole remaining Super Power on Earth.  Perhaps it is time to conceptualize the idea that our existential enemy is not a rag-tag group of malcontents dedicated to turning back the clock by six centuries.  The enemy that poses a mortal threat to our way of life is instead the homegrown Progressive Movement that has labored for more than a century to subvert our education, corrupt our politics, and evolve their way from constitutionally limited government to central planning and total control. 
The visible head of the Progressive Movement today is President Barack Obama.  As portrayed by the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media he is not just an Alinsky style community organizer, he is a constitutional scholar.  We are told endlessly that he was a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago.  Leaving the reality of these claims aside suffice it to say that this constitutional scholar professes to believe that the constitution is a flawed document because it does not provide for positive rights such as guarantees of housing, jobs, etc.  The kind of rights that the constitutions of the Soviet Union did and of Red China does provide its slaves, I mean citizens.  Not to worry our constitutional scholar-in-chief also believes that our Constitution, written to set strict limits on the federal government is a living document that each generation is free to interpret: that is, change at will.   
President Obama has presided over the most calamitous decline in American prestige and influence since his fellow Progressive Jimmy Carter disgraced the office.  Mr. Obama’s apology tours, his over-the-top spending which are nothing less than cross generational theft are eclipsed by his blatant assaults upon the very core of his responsibility: the integrity of the Constitution. 
The president of the United States is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, but instead Mr. Obama has trampled upon the letter as well as the spirit of this document meant to define the perimeters of federal power.   
Unconfirmed Czars rule like potentates over shadow departments dispensing huge budgets while creating a parallel government outside of citizen scrutiny or control.  Appointees at the National Labor Relations Board work at subordinating the nation to organized labor.  A rogue justice department provides guns to Mexican cartels, refuses to prosecute obvious instances of voter intimidation, gives a pass to Islamist groups,  and stonewalls Congress, while aggressively going after peaceful pro-life demonstrators and America’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  They sue states that try to enforce immigration laws they ignore and seek to try the perpetrators of 9-11 in a New York trial that would parade itself through our national consciousness like a Broadway production of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Superstar.  
Beyond these abuses of power there are two glaring examples of the type of blatant transgressions of clear constitutional limits which, if not addressed set a precedent that may stand in the future as signs of the times that were missed at the time.  If not addressed, they will point accusing fingers at a generation asleep at the switch when the bounds of limited government were finally breached. 
Ruling by decree from Chicago-on-the-Potomac our Leader has taken us to war without even consulting Congress and made recess appointments while Congress was in session.  
Mr. Obama has said he can rule without Congress because he can’t wait.  He travels the country at tax payer expense campaigning for four more years to seal the deal, inflaming class warfare, and dispensing government giveaways to buy votes.  These two egregious affronts to the Constitution lie at the feet of the Washington Monument passed over by the media and explained away by the government’s propaganda arm.  And what does the loyal opposition do?  They huff and they puff but actually they do nothing. 
Only two Congressmen had the integrity to point out that presidents are not allowed to take us to war by whim. And only one had the courage to point out that making high level appointments without Senate confirmation while the Senate is in session is more than bad form: it is unconstitutional and more compatible with a dictatorship than a republic. 
We stand before the yawning maw of collectivism presided over by a self-proclaimed transformational president seeking to change us from what we have been to what he thinks we should be.  Mr. Obama is supported by what amounts to a personality cult in the media and a legion of fellow citizens addicted to either distributing or receiving the dole.  The Republican candidates are standing in a circular firing squad working hard at allowing the Progressive Media make them look like the bar scene from Star Wars.  At the same time the media gives the President a pass for everything from gas prices to artificially deflated unemployment figures.  If America as we have known her is to survive, we must elect a Congress with enough courage and enough votes to do what must be done.  The Congress we have now is passive in the face of serial provocations and outright illegality.  They will not call Mr. Obama to account on anything so he feels free to do everything. 
If he wins again we all lose unless we replace those who merely go along to get along with those who are willing to speak the forbidden word…Impeach! 
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College.  He is the Historian of the Future and the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2012 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens

Open Thread: Why Do You Support Your Candidate?

An open thread for our readers today. Why do you support your choice for the GOP contest? Would you vote for the others if they received the nomination? Did they win the debate last night?

Please bookmark!

New Santorum Ad: Say What?

Please bookmark!

Rubio's Religious Past: Mormonism

HT: FeedBuzz

When I woke up this morning the religious faith of Marco Rubio was the last thing on my mind, but thirty minutes later, here I am writing about the religious faith of Marco Rubio, all because someone thought the topic needed to be addressed and that it might have political implications.

According to an exclusive story by Buzzfeed's McKay Coppins, which I stumbled upon by Hot Air, when Marco Rubio, and his family lived in Nevada during his pre-high school years, they converted away from the Roman Catholic faith and became Mormons for several years, apparently Marco was enthusiastic about his new faith.

But when they moved back to Miami, the family all converted back to the Catholic church and their Mormon roots have not been particulary important since then. In fact, judging by Rubio's church of choice now (non-denominational Baptist), he has converted once again since moving back to Miami.

And my thoughts: so what?

I doubt this (1.) would matter to voters nationally if Rubio was ever on the top, or bottom of a GOP ticket, (2.) would mean anything to someone like Mitt Romney in the Veep-stakes, in fact it would probably be another plus in selecting him and (3.) has any significance at all. As someone who has belonged to several different denominations in just 18 years, family's seeeking new faiths isn't new.

Besides, Rubio spending several years as a Mormon doesn't change the fact he's from the South, he belongs officially to the Catholic church, he's of Cuban origin and that he's a rock star in the GOP.

What say you?

The Romney-Paul Alliance...

With the 2012 Republican primary about to explode with 13 contests between just eight days, many theories are circulating around the blogosphere as to why Romney, and Paul are peacefully running against one-another, while they focus their attacks on the latest flavor man challenging Romney for frontrunner.

Some have absolutely no explanation whatsoever; others believe it's a ploy by Paul to have his son considered, or selected, for Vice-President in exchange for delegates, or support at the convention. However, I have a theory that makes political sense for both candidates.

Romney is looking at a strong plurality/weak majority victory in the vein of John McCain in 2008 - where his campaign will immediately have to fire up the base. Now, imagine in August he adds one major line to the Republican platform: auditing the federal reserve and researching an return to hard money is the official GOP monetary policy.

With this substantial political victory, which Paul has been fighting for decades to achieve, he could end the long fight by endorsing Romney - ensuring his supporters back him and the administration's more likely to follow through on the campaign promise to please his son, who wants to be involved, regardless of who the nominee is, in governing.

I also believe Paul wants to keep his message in the campaign as long as possible, and by attacking Santorum on lack of fiscal conservatism, or by not attacking Romney personally on anything, he is successfully achieving that end, while continuing to include his name in the process.

This is just my hunch, but what say you?

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Watch Republican Debate Highlights 2/22/2012

And vote:

Who Won the Republican Debate Tonight in Arizona?

Watch the whole thing here.

Please bookmark!

Vote in Our Poll: Who Won the Republican Debate Tonight in Arizona (2/22/2012)?


An up and down night. Each one of the candidates tried their best attacks and both Santorum and Romney were on the defensive at least some of the night. Video highlights are here. Who won?

Please bookmark!

Video:Has Mass Effect 3 Gone Too Far?

Please bookmark!

Vote in Our Poll: Who Is Your Choice for the GOP Nomination?

Please bookmark!

Watch Republican Debate Live in Arizona 2/22/2012

The debate is now over. You can watch highlights here.

And while you're here:

Who Won the Republican Debate Tonight in Arizona 

And related:

Video: Romney Supporters Taking Down Santorum Signs

Please bookmark!

A Call for Donations

To our loyal readers of Pundit Press, I have a favor to ask of you. As you may know, I'm running for Mayor of my hometown in New York. The campaign is going well and the election is in March. I'm facing off against the incumbent Mayor and the son of a former Mayor. The race is expensive and time consuming.

And just yesterday I closed on my first home, putting down $20,000 and nearly wiping out my life savings. It's a foreclosure and needs a significant amount of work over the next month or two. I'm a bit short of cash at the moment and am hoping that our readers can toss a couple of dollars our way.

Even just $1 or $2 can help us keep on track.


Please bookmark!

Video: Romney Supporters Taking Down Santorum Signs

From Rebel Pundit:

Please bookmark!

NBC/Marist: Romney Leads in Arizona and Michigan

With potentially the final Republican Presidential debate just hours away, an NBC/Marist survey of Republican voters in both Arizona and Michigan show Mitt Romney back in the lead in both states, although the results in Michigan are anything from written in stone.

Arizona GOP Primary (29 delegates):

Romney - 43%
Santorum - 27%
Gingrich - 16%
Ron Paul - 11%

Michigan GOP Primary (30 delegates):

Romney - 37%
Santorum - 35%
Ron Paul - 13%
Gingrich - 8%

With Arizona awarding all their delegates to the victor, Michigan is absolutely vital for Santorum to prevent Romney from winning over 75% of Tuesday's delegates, which would be a small step in the right direction for the former Massachusetts governor who is calculating his road to 1,144 delegates.

Tonight's CNN debate in Mesa, Arizona, will be crucial in determining who Michigan's delegates eventually go to next Tuesday and by how much. I wouldn't be surprised if CNN moderator John King forgets he is in Arizona and focuses completely on the Rust Belt primary everyone is watching with angst.

What say you?

Shabaab Faces Major Defeat in Somalia

The al-Shabaab Islamist movement has been dealt a heavy blow in Somalia. The branch of al Qaeda has been driven out of the town of Baidoa, which had been one of its strongholds. It has also been removed from the country's capital, Mogadishu. The city was captured by a joint Ethiopian-Somali expedition.

Witnesses say that after fierce fighting on Tuesday, al-Shabab fighters pulled out of Baidoa - which was then taken on Wednesday without a battle.

BBC Somali service analyst Abdullahi Sheikh says Baidoa is a big loss to al-Shabab, as the main road linking Mogadishu to the south-west and parts of Kenya and Ethiopia passes through the city.

Some more good news.

Please bookmark!

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

The Role of the Church in the World

The following is another guest piece from reader John:

James Russell Lowell, the American poet, satirist , writer, diplomat and abolitionist was born in 1819 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Anti-slavery when being anti-slavery wasn't cool, in his "Stanzas on Freedom" in 1843, he wrote words which resonate with the history of the world, "they are slaves who dare not be, in the right with two or three," thus echoing the truth that the majority are usually wrong, and the minority usually right.

But the words which apply to the role of the church in the world came from an article entitled, "The Present Crisis." Written in 1845, as a protest against the war with Mexico, the following lines were lifted from the long poem and ended up in church hymnals with the title, "Once to Every Man and Nation:"

Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne;
but that scaffold sways the future and behind the dim unknown;
standeth God within the shadows, keeping watch above his own.

The history of the church in the world is one of persecution, martyrdom and flight from oppressive governments. Around the globe today, most believers still meet in secret, as governments still attempt to suppress those who would follow God instead of man. The church has always in every country, been seen as a threat to reason, to science and to governments' rule over the masses.

Jesus said, "If they have hated me, they will hate you." That sums it up quite nicely. The question becomes then, what is the role of the church in a world which hates the very existence of the church?

No matter what country, what culture, what tribe, believers in God have always been mocked, chased, persecuted, and when dictators can get away with it, believers have been burned, drowned, strangled, hung, shot, eaten by animals and executed by every possible means. That the church has been long hated and much despised around the world simply cannot be denied.

According the Bible, the role of the church in the world, at its most basic is four-fold: to obey God; to teach believers; to preach the gospel; and to continue until Christ returns.

One: To obey God. A story in the New Testament Book of Acts stands out here. When Peter and the other apostles were imprisoned for the crime of preaching the gospel, upon their release, Peter's statement is clear, "We ought to obey God rather than men." Hence the last 5,772 years of history record time after time where a group of believers refused to obey men and governments when those men and governments attempted unjust laws. We call it now, civil disobedience, and it is practiced in most countries, often in face of the threat of imprisonment or death.

Since America was founded upon biblical principles, believers here (for the most part) have been spared the punishment which comes from disobeying the government. Many exceptions abound though, as our society currently attempts what the rest of the countries have already attempted and failed, that is, to rid the world of anyone insane enough to believe the gospel.

One of the problems with believers in America today is that we still think we can avoid persecution. Conservative talk radio is not helping. It promotes the belief among so called conservative Christians that we can peacefully change government. So we attempt peaceful methods to effect a change. Peaceful protests, voting, e-mail blasts and letters to Congress are just a few methods attempted. Everyone knows by now though, writing your Congressman makes about as much sense as drawing a picture of him. History shows that governments are not changed by peaceful methods. But whatever the government, the Bible teaches that believers are to obey God, rather than men, no matter what the cost.

Two: To teach believers. Contrary to modern opinion, the church does not exist in the world to bring unbelievers inside the church and crowd them alongside believers. When that happens, the message is always adulterated, watered down and compromised to make the unbelievers comfortable. When the unbelievers are comfortable in the service of the church, the truth has been watered down, and the gospel that Jesus came to save sinners is out the stained glass window, and a feel good gospel, with bands, and movie stars, food, dating clubs and dancers take center stage. What happens next? Believers leave because the church is no longer a church, it is a social club, with all the rights and privileges thereof. The purpose of the church is for the ministers called by God to teach the flock how to live in an unrighteous world.

Three: To preach the gospel. The preaching of the gospel is the theme of the church. The gospel which we are required to believe is that all men are sinners, that Jesus came into the world to save sinners and that through belief on his name, man can be born again and enjoy God forever.
The "prosperity" gospel, the "God wants you healthy" gospel, the "God loves everybody no matter what" gospel; all have no Biblical place in the church. The preaching of the gospel should lead to believers actually living the gospel. St. Francis of Assissi said it best: "Preach the gospel at all
times. If necessary, use words."

Four: Occupy. Luke chapter 19 tells this story best. Jesus said, "Occupy till I come." Though the occupy theme has been stolen of late and applied in a somewhat hobo jungle manner by paid hobo's, the thought of occupying is a biblical thought. The church's role in the world is to obey God, to teach believers, to preach the gospel, and to continue doing it until the end of the age. Hence, occupy till I come.

The church's role is not to change government, to stop wars, or to make life miserable for the rest of the world. Though all governments need changing, and we all desire an end to war, and maybe the rest of the world would be better off miserable, those are not the roles the church
is to play.

Jesus said, "Upon this rock will I build my church." Not, "upon this rock will I build my government, my kingdom, my society, my culture," but "my church." The church is a separate entity in the world. It is here until the end of the age, and as Jesus said, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Please bookmark!

Check Out Bathroom Vanities Only

Looking for bathroom vanities? Look no further than Bathroom Vanities Only for your needs. This site will provide you with variety of different types of vanities. To make it even better, shipping is free within the continental United States. With sales and opportunities, check this one out for all of your bathroom vanities

Please bookmark!

Crazy Alan Grayson at it Again

Disgraced former Congressman Grayson, as smart as always.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Please bookmark!

Monday, February 20, 2012

VA Senate Votes to Drug Test Welfare Applicants

It's about time. Let's see if the Virginia House will pass it, too.

Sen. Steve Martin of Chesterfield County said his bill would ensure that welfare money is being spent to support families and children. His bill would require an initial drug screening of applicants, followed by drug testing if officials suspected illegal drug use. Anyone testing positive could lose benefits for a year.

And opponentsa are none too pleased.

Opponents argued the bill offends the dignity of welfare recipients and incorrectly assumes they use drugs more than the general population. They also said the state would spend more on testing than it would save.

Awww... needing to do something reasonable for free money from other people? An outrage!

Please bookmark!

Harris: Reagan Greatest Modern President

First off, happy Presidents' Day everyone. I am sure the children of America are thrilled with their one week vacation and maybe some of them will actually learn a little something about the men this day is named for during that time.

Second, if I asked you who the greatest President since World War 2 was - who would you say?

Well, if you're like 25% of the country - Ronald Reagan would receive your vote, beating out Franklin Roosevelt (19%) and John Kennedy (15%) by solid margins, according to The Harris Poll. The survey also found that Americans rank Reagan the second greatest leader in our history, just behind Lincoln.

And what if I asked you about the worst Presidents since World War 2?

You might have guessed the current one and his predecessor aren't that loved in the United States right now. 27% rank Bush as the worst, while 22% bestow that honour on Obama - leaving Nixon oddly not directly on the bottom with 12%. This must be a set-back for self-proclaimed fourth greatest president in American history...

What say you?

Santorum Re-Opens Lead in Michigan

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has again opened a lead in Michigan against former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Romney, of course, grew up in the state, his father was a popular governor, and won the 2008 primary there. Still, Santorum is back ahead (warning PDF).

Santorum: 37%
Romney: 33%
Paul: 15%
Gingrich: 10%

This also comes as Santorum has built a lead in both Texas and Oklahoma.

Please bookmark!

Santorum: Obama's Worldview Upside Down

Please bookmark!

Sunday, February 19, 2012

What Was ESPN Thinking?

The aftermath of ESPN's mobile web site publishing an article headlined "Chink in the armor" in reference to New York Knicks' sensation Jeremy Lin having a down night against New Orleans on Friday night has been explosive. The original author has been fired and another employee has been suspended for repeating the slur on broadcast.

This story has brought something very important to the forefront, as much as I love ESPN and have dreamed of working for them (sorry Pundit Press, but I'd bolt in a second for Bristol), they have big editorial issues within their website and mobile apparatus.

If someone, regardless of their seniority, can publish whatever they want under the news section at something as far-reaching and important as ESPN without editorial review, or even slight approval, they have serious internal issues that must be dealt with. We're not talking about RedState, or some low level blog here, but the leading source in sports.

I'm not calling for Bristol to review every article for racist codewords, although headlining "chink" with Lin's picture right above wouldn't be hard to spot as a red flag, but some measured system of editorial review must be put in place, because you will never be able to fully trust your writers not only to be professional and tolerant, but to consider your company's appearance as well.

Here's to hoping ESPN learns a lesson from this media debacle and is intelligent enough to review articles to their website before tens of millions of people eventually view them, and that they treat their website more like a newspaper; not a blog site.

What say you?

ESPN Racist Headline Removed

ESPN removed a racist headline it put up regarding Knicks player Jeremy Lin.

ESPN used a shockingly racist headline "Chink in the Armor" for the Knicks' loss Friday night, along with a picture of Jeremy Lin, who is an Asian-American. The headline was eventually removed, and ESPN issued an apology late this morning.


Please bookmark!

Check this out!